Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “providing a play of a multi-stage game including a wheel feature that increases a quantity of pointers associated with a wheel in a gaming environment.”
The limitations of “a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions, that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of a triggering event; cause a display, by the display device, of a wheel having sections and a first pointer associated with the wheel, wherein a first section of the wheel indicates a first quantity of additional pointers and a first quantity of re-spins of the wheel, and wherein a plurality of the sections each indicate one of a plurality of different amounts; cause a display, by the display device, of a first activation of the wheel comprising the wheel spinning and stopping such that the first pointer indicates the first section of the wheel; cause a display, by the display device, of a second pointer associated with the wheel; cause a display, by the display device, of a second activation of the wheel comprising the wheel spinning and stopping such that one of the first pointer and the second pointer indicates the first section of the wheel and the other of the first pointer and the second pointer indicates one of the sections that indicates one of the amounts; cause a display, by the display device, of a third pointer associated with the wheel; and cause a display, by the display device, of a final activation of the wheel comprising the wheel spinning and stopping such that the each of the first pointer, the second pointer, and the third pointer each indicate one of the sections of the wheel that indicates one of the amounts” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “providing a play of a multi-stage game including a wheel feature that increases a quantity of pointers associated with a wheel in a gaming environment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. Manz (US 2016/0307392 A1).
As per claim 1, Manz et al disclose a gaming system comprising: a processor [0027]; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions [0028], that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of a triggering event (see claim 8); cause a display, by the display device, of a wheel having sections and a first pointer associated with the wheel, wherein a first section of the wheel indicates a first quantity of additional pointers and a first quantity of re-spins of the wheel, and wherein a plurality of the sections each indicate one of a plurality of different amounts (see fig. 5, claims 5, 6); cause a display, by the display device, of a first activation of the wheel comprising the wheel spinning and stopping such that the first pointer indicates the first section of the wheel (see figs. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B); cause a display, by the display device, of a second pointer associated with the wheel (see figs. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B); cause a display, by the display device, of a second activation of the wheel comprising the wheel spinning and stopping such that one of the first pointer and the second pointer indicates the first section of the wheel and the other of the first pointer and the second pointer indicates one of the sections that indicates one of the amounts (see fig. 5); cause a display, by the display device, of a third pointer associated with the wheel (see fig. 6); and cause a display, by the display device, of a final activation of the wheel comprising the wheel spinning and stopping such that the each of the first pointer, the second pointer, and the third pointer each indicate one of the sections of the wheel that indicates one of the amounts (see fig. 5).
As per claim 2, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to, between the second activation of the wheel and the final activation of the wheel, cause one or more activations of the wheel that result in the processor causing a display, by the display device, of a quantity of additional pointers associated with the wheel such that a total quantity of pointers associated with the wheel is less than a total quantity of the sections of the wheel .
As per claim 3, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to, between the second activation of the wheel and the final activation of the wheel, cause one or more activations of the wheel that result in the processor causing a display, by the display device, of a quantity of additional pointers associated with the wheel such that a total quantity of pointers associated with the wheel equals a total quantity of the sections of the wheel (see figs. 2-6).
As per claim 4, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, of the second pointer and the third pointer indicating a same one of the sections of the wheel.
As per claim 5, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the first quantity of additional pointers is more than one (see fig. 6).
As per claim 6, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 4, wherein the first quantity of re-spins of the wheel is more than one (see fig. 6).
As per claim 7, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the first quantity of re-spins of the wheel is more than one(see fig. 6).
As per claim 8, Manz et al disclose a gaming system comprising: a processor [0027]; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions [0028], that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of a triggering event (see claim 8); cause a display, by the display device, of a wheel having sections and a first pointer associated with the wheel, wherein each of the sections of the wheel indicates one of a quantity of additional pointers and a quantity of re-spins of the wheel (see fig. 5, claims 5, 6); cause a display, by the display device, of a first activation of the wheel comprising the wheel spinning and stopping such that the first pointer indicates one of the sections of the wheel (see figs. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B); cause a display, by the display device, of a quantity of second pointers associated with the wheel, wherein the quantity of second pointers is based on the quantity of additional pointers associated with the indicated section of the wheel of the first activation; cause a display, by the display device, of a replacement of the indication of the quantity of additional pointers and the quantity of re-spins of the wheel associated with the indicated section with a first amount associated with the indicated section of the wheel of the first activation (see figs. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B); cause a display, by the display device, of a second activation of the wheel comprising the wheel spinning and stopping such that each of the second quantity of pointers indicates a different one of the sections of the wheel (see fig. 5); cause a display, by the display device, of a quantity of third pointers associated with the wheel, wherein the quantity of third pointers is based on the quantity of additional pointers associated with one of the indicated sections of the wheel of the second activation (see fig. 6); and cause a display, by the display device, of a replacement of the indication of the quantity of additional of pointers and the quantity of re-spins of the wheel associated with the indicated section with a second amount associated with the indicated section of the wheel of the second activation (see fig. 5).
As per claim 9, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 8, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device, for each of the sections of the wheel with the respective replacement of the indication of the quantity of additional pointers and the quantity of re-spins of the wheel associated with that section with the respective amount associated with the indicated section (see fig. 3A, 3B; different sections associated with different amounts).
As per claim 10, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 8, wherein, before the first activation, for each section, the quantity of additional pointers and the quantity of re-spins of the wheel associated with said section is the same.
As per claim 11, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 8, wherein, before the first activation, for each of a plurality of sections, the quantity of additional pointers and the quantity of re-spins of the wheel associated with said section are different (see fig. 3A, 3B; different sections associated with different amounts).
As per claim 12, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 8, wherein the first amount and the second amount are different (see fig. 6).
As per claim 13, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 8, wherein the first amount and the second amount are predetermined (see fig. 6).
As per claim 14, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 8, wherein the first amount and the second amount are randomly determined (see fig. 6).
As per claim 15, Manz et al disclose a gaming system comprising: a processor [0027]; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions [0028], that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause a display, by a display device, of an indication of a triggering event (see claim 8); cause a display, by the display device, of a wheel having sections and a first pointer associated with the wheel, wherein a first section indicates a first quantity of additional pointers, a first quantity of re-spins of the wheel, and a first quantity of boosts, and wherein each of a plurality of the sections indicates one of a plurality of different amounts (see fig. 5, claims 5, 6); cause a display, by the display device, of a first activation of the wheel comprising the wheel spinning and stopping such that the first pointer indicates the first section of the wheel (see figs. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B); cause a display, by the display device, of a second pointer associated with the wheel; cause a display, by the display device, of a first increase in each of a first quantity of the plurality of different amounts indicated by the plurality of the sections of the wheel (see figs. 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B); cause a display, by the display device, of a second activation of the wheel comprising the wheel spinning and stopping such that the first pointer and the second pointer each indicate a respective section of the wheel associated with an increased amount (see fig. 5); cause a display, by the display device, of a second increase in each of the amounts indicated by the plurality of the sections of the wheel (see fig. 6); and cause a display, by the display device, of a final activation of the wheel comprising the wheel spinning and stopping such that the first pointer and the second pointer each indicate a respective section of the wheel associated with one of the increased amounts (see fig. 5).
As per claim 16, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein the first quantity is equal to a total quantity of the sections that are associated with amounts (see fig. 3A, 3B; different sections associated with different amounts).
As per claim 17, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein the first increase is different than the second increase (inherent feature).
As per claim 18, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein for each of the sections that are associated with amounts, the first increase is based on a percentage of the associated amount (see fig. 6).
As per claim 19, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein for each of the sections that are associated with amounts, the first increase is a predetermined amount (see fig. 6).
As per claim 20, Manz et al disclose the gaming system of Claim 15, wherein for each of the sections that are associated with amounts, the first increase and the second increase are of a same amount (see fig. 6).
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 6-4:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David L Lewis can be reached on 5712727673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715